How Will Net Neutrality Effect SotT?

[Ubermensch]

I don't think "Ubermensch" is necessarily indicative of racism. It might just indicate admiration for Nietzsche. Also, if we notice, the person with the same call name but using a small u with the two dots, is more of a stickler for details regarding the term (it takes a slight extra effort to get those two dots over the u), and the writing style is very very different.
In my opinion, objectivity means analyzing the facts before coming to conclusions, especially before speaking as if those as yet indeterminate conclusions are fact. This objectivity is what separates sincere discernment from the very tactics this forum is against.

Objectively speaking, Ubermensch has so far asked a valid question, and has not violated any of the rules of the forum. His feedback also seems rational to me. I am not saying it is wrong to be wary, or even to check out his background on other sites. It is, furthermore, not wrong to ask him to clarify to those who are suspicious of the call name, (which given the popularized associations of Nietzsche with Naziism, is not a "correct" call name to use).

Thank you EsoQuest and Laura, for your objectivity- something some here seem to lack.

Hmmm, interesting. Actually, Ubermensch, that is not 'quite an assumption". Using information you provided, Salleles went to the forums you mentioned to look up what you might have posted. Finding a user name almost identical to yours, he concluded they were your posts. On further inspection, another user name on that forum exactly matched your user name here, but there were zero posts attributed to it. Therefore, one again is directed to the first username that is almost identical to yours, in order to see your posts.

I beg to differ. "Finding a user name almost identical to yours, he concluded they were your posts." His conclusion was based on the assumption that my newly created alias for the SotT forum is the same/similar to other forums that I frequent. Which, I'm sorry to your dismay- is not an accurate assumption.

And most importantly, if you (salleles) or anyone else (anart) are going to accuse me for saying such derogatory statements as this:

let me just say, i hope i live to see the day that all muslims of african/mid-east decent are herded up like a bunch of cattle, put into cages, and deported from civilized whtie countries to madagascar or tasmania

no, sorry dumbfuck, but its your rejected, failed attitude of 'tolerence' and 'diversity' that is getting us this. they hate us for our support for israel, not because we are racist towards them you -flicking- moron.

i enjoy it when marxist liberals are hurt in attacks, they bring it upon themselves and they deserve it. they're willing to risk their lives to uphold diversity. I'm not.

You better make sure you're right.

I would agree that this assumption would not be "quite an assumption at all" if the postings in SotT and digg.com are similar in demeanor or topic; but it seems quite the contrary. So, will I provide my other alias for digg.com and others to prove that I am innocent? No, I will not. I do not believe that I am obligated to do such a thing, especially since I have been falsely accused for something I would never say or do.

This is my first post at SotT and I merely asked one simple question: How Will Net Neutrality Effect SotT?

If this is SotT staff and user's idea of a warm welcome, then I feel right at home.

I am simply appalled.

 

[anart]

And most importantly, if you (salleles) or anyone else (anart) are going to accuse me for saying such derogatory statements as this:

I never accused you of anything, I merely asked for clarification. Calm down.

Most people, when referring to other forums they have posted on as proof of who they are, would clearly state that they used a different name on those forums. You did not do that, so, no, it is not a huge jump to assume your user name is the same there.

Quite frankly, I'm not that concerned about who you are, or what your user name does or does not mean, however, you seem to be reacting very strongly to a very simple question about who you are by Salleles, and then a request for clarification by me, due to the fact that there is more than one username on that forum that is spelled almost exactly like yours. If you posted as Ken Smith, and said, "I post on this forum and that forum", after you had been asked who you might be, then people would go to those forums, if they were so interested, to see what 'Ken Smith' had posted - it is really not that complicated a concept. I'm not saying that every Ken Smith would be you, but I am saying that the offense you are taking at what might have been an innocent mistake, is out of proportion here, and that raises questions for me, personally - although I realize that whether questions are raised in my mind or not may not be relevant for anyone other than me.

I notice that you have yet to tell us who you were on these other forums, however you have stated that you are 'appalled' at being asked.

I'm sorry if I'm just not getting it here, but why all the fuss? It has already been clearly stated that Salleles jumped to a conclusion, yet, instead of understanding that mistakes can be made, and all here are aware of that, you seem to be 'protesting too much', or so it seems to me - and, I could be completely wrong.

 

[Ubermensch]

I never accused you of anything, I merely asked for clarification. Calm down.

Excuse me, but I feel that I have every right to feel the way I do. No, you did not accuse of anything, but you stating:

Hmmm, interesting. Actually, Ubermensch, that is not 'quite an assumption". Using information you provided, Salleles went to the forums you mentioned to look up what you might have posted. Finding a user name almost identical to yours, he concluded they were your posts. On further inspection, another user name on that forum exactly matched your user name here, but there were zero posts attributed to it. Therefore, one again is directed to the first username that is almost identical to yours, in order to see your posts.

Does not make me feel any better about these false accusations, especially since it is "quite an assumption," and the fact that you seem to disagree does not make the matter any better.

let me just say, i hope i live to see the day that all muslims of african/mid-east decent are herded up like a bunch of cattle, put into cages, and deported from civilized whtie countries to madagascar or tasmania

no, sorry dumbfuck, but its your rejected, failed attitude of 'tolerence' and 'diversity' that is getting us this. they hate us for our support for israel, not because we are racist towards them you -flicking- moron.

i enjoy it when marxist liberals are hurt in attacks, they bring it upon themselves and they deserve it. they're willing to risk their lives to uphold diversity. I'm not.

Have you read that? Because if you did and if someone accused you for writing that, would you not feel the same way that I do?

I notice that you have yet to tell us who you were on these other forums, however you have stated that you are 'appalled' at being asked.

Like I said, I am not going to. Why should I? To prove to you, Salleles, and anyone else that thinks I am some kind of ranting psychopath that I'm not? I know that I am not and I do not feel that I am obligated in anyway to tell you my other aliases to prove my innocence.

I'm sorry if I'm just not getting it here, but why all the fuss? It has already been clearly stated that Salleles jumped to a conclusion, yet, instead of understanding that mistakes can be made, and all here are aware of that, you seem to be 'protesting too much', or so it seems to me - and, I could be completely wrong.

You never clearly stated that Salleles jumped to a conclusion. EsoQuest and Laura were the first, but certainly not you.
As I remember, you rebuttled what I said about Salleles' comment about being an assumption.

As you can see, it is not 'quite and assumption' at all.

When in fact, it is. I am protesting to the simple fact that I have been falsely accused for something I did not do.

 

[Guest]

This is my first post at SotT and I merely asked one simple question: How Will Net Neutrality Effect SotT?

If this is SotT staff and user's idea of a warm welcome, then I feel right at home.

I am simply appalled.

You seem to be digressing from the purpose of your own statement "...and I merely asked one simple question: How Will Net Neutrality Effect SotT?" The mistake was pointed out, acknowledged by at least one member, and the topic continued.

The reason things are pointed out is not to make members feel bad, or other members feel good. It is to keep the thread on topic and the discussion noise-free. One of the greatest sources of noise is ego expressing self-importance.

The fact that some people did not publically apologize does not mean they did not consider the cautionary note. The fact that you seem to want to verbally "get back at them" indicates a bit of ego, even though the topic you suggested was already back on track, until you threw it off again.

I think people are mature enough to learn without being degraded, and I hope you are mature enough to not hold grudges or demand ego satisfaction. Given the nature of attacks on this forum, reactions can be swifter than thought, but that's because we are learning to deal with high pressure situations, and a lot of clever deviants that make fooling people their craft and trade. It just goes with the territory, and that territory has little room for ego noise.

Now this topic (the real one of the thread) is very interesting because it's already been mentioned on SOTT that there may not be a free access Internet in a few years. Don summed it up pretty well, I think:

Just to clarify some confusion about the original topic, the issue is that the gatekeepers of the internet in the U.S. want to charge content providers extra money to provide the bandwidth so that the content provider's customers can access the sites quickly. If you (site owners) don't pay it will take a longer time for people to load your sites. The crux is not between the ISP and the individual but between Verizon, say, and Amazon.com. The price of internet access will continue to go down for consumers but way up for site owners.

and Ark presented a different perspective on this view:

If people are looking for the truth - they will find their ways. All these buzzings did not help. When the time was ripe - all has changed.

In this case, I gather the "buzzings" are all these threats that the Internet we know will be no more. The point is the desire to get to the truth, when ignited, cannot be stopped by a few threats. There is always a way around things, especially where computers are concerned. Ask most hackers, and they are probably already devising back up plans.

The point is, if the powers that be keep threatening that they will openly now hijack society from the citizens, the citizens may well just create their own underground society. We live in an age of technological and civilizational complexity that does not make things easy for the controllers if the people start thinking in large numbers, and using that complexity to turn a few tables on those who have gotten a bit too used to easy street.

We seem to forget, they may own everything, but the people still run it. It may just be that making free Internet access difficult will motivate some people to start creating other options instead of just seeking ones they hope others had the courage to pursue. In fact, maybe that will be an emerging trend in the future. Instead of being seekers of others' options, we might want to start to learn to create our own.

 

[The Gardener]

It seems to escape from you your nick make you suspiscious. You were asked to provide info so this suspect would not bear over you, and what do you do? All but providing it.

If I go to a party with a bleeding axe on my hands, I will be asked some questions, dont you think?
The main question would be: Why do you have that bleeding axe on your hands?
You act af is this were a offence to you, and say all sort of things except explaining why you have that axe on your hands.

 

[The Gardener]

We live in an age of technological and civilizational complexity that does not make things easy for the controllers if the people start thinking in large numbers, and using that complexity to turn a few tables on those who have gotten a bit too used to easy street.

My brother has set-up a server. He does not knows the technicalities of servers (neither do I but I think thisn will change): He hired a guy and the guy said my brother's server is virtually autonomous, that he could "set-up a whole new internet" with it. My brother do not have many resources, so I will document my self on how to set-up an pathocracy-proof server, if such a thing is possible. If i succed, I will offer it to SOTT to... I dont know what for but I will offer it.

 

[Ubermensch]

The fact that some people did not publically apologize does not mean they did not consider the cautionary note. The fact that you seem to want to verbally "get back at them" indicates a bit of ego, even though the topic you suggested was already back on track, until you threw it off again.

Yes, I understand your point; but if I were to falsely accuse someone, I would feel obligated to apologize. It is not my intention to "verbally 'get back at them,'" but to draw some kind of apology. You're right, I apologize for throwing the topic off track, but I felt obligated to defend myself; especially considering that this is my first post on SotT.

But, if the accusers do not feel they have to apologize; then fine, I will simply breathe in and move on.

Getting back on topic:

In this case, I gather the "buzzings" are all these threats that the Internet we know will be no more. The point is the desire to get to the truth, when ignited, cannot be stopped by a few threats. There is always a way around things, especially where computers are concerned. Ask most hackers, and they are probably already devising back up plans.
The point is, if the powers that be keep threatening that they will openly now hijack society from the citizens, the citizens may well just create their own underground society. We live in an age of technological and civilizational complexity that does not make things easy for the controllers if the people start thinking in large numbers, and using that complexity to turn a few tables on those who have gotten a bit too used to easy street.
We seem to forget, they may own everything, but the people still run it. It may just be that making free Internet access difficult will motivate some people to start creating other options instead of just seeking ones they hope others had the courage to pursue. In fact, maybe that will be an emerging trend in the future. Instead of being seekers of others' options, we might want to start to learn to create our own.

I could not agree more. It is just my concern that non-profit websites like SotT should prepare for the worst. Talking amongst my programming friends, they have talked about the possibility of a rise of a sort of "dark internet," where users will be able to use the same lines, but away from ISP/government survellience. Unfortunately, when net neutrality does get taken down, I'm afraid the internet-user population will be cut in half- especially amongst amateur users.

 

[ArdVan]

I'm sorry if I'm just not getting it here, but why all the fuss? It has already been clearly stated that Salleles jumped to a conclusion, yet, instead of understanding that mistakes can be made, and all here are aware of that, you seem to be 'protesting too much', or so it seems to me - and, I could be completely wrong.

You never clearly stated that Salleles jumped to a conclusion. EsoQuest and Laura were the first, but certainly not you.
As I remember, you rebuttled what I said about Salleles' comment about being an assumption.

Anart did never say that Salleles was jumping to a conclusion (see in bold) but that others have stated this. But it seems to me that you are pretending that she did do that and that therefore in your opinion she didn't say the truth. But as I see it your are wrong here.

 

[Ubermensch]

Anart did never say that Salleles was jumping to a conclusion (see in bold) but that others have stated this. But it seems to me that you are pretending that she did do that and that therefore in your opinion she didn't say the truth. But as I see it your are wrong here.

Hmmm, interesting. Actually, Ubermensch, that is not 'quite an assumption". Using information you provided, Salleles went to the forums you mentioned to look up what you might have posted. Finding a user name almost identical to yours, he concluded they were your posts. On further inspection, another user name on that forum exactly matched your user name here, but there were zero posts attributed to it. Therefore, one again is directed to the first username that is almost identical to yours, in order to see your posts.

As you can see, it is not 'quite and assumption' at all. Now that you say that was not your user name, could you tell us what it was?

Since you have thrown the topic back off track, here you go.

Honestly, like I said, I am just going to breathe in and move on.

 

[Guest]

I felt obligated to defend myself; especially considering that this is my first post on SotT.

I understand where you are coming from. The thing is, being mature means being civil even if the other person seems to not be. I really think if you had held your poise, you would probably have gotten the apology you wanted. You see, there is nothing better to show people where they err than being a good example to them (as long as people are honest, of course). It tends to be catchy when people are sincere, and these people are.

Unfortunately, when net neutrality does get taken down, I'm afraid the internet-user population will be cut in half- especially amongst amateur users.

That may be so, but I think those that will fall by the way-side may not be very interested in more than what the MSM can provide them. And the rest WILL be challenged to make a come back. Right now people are so disinformed by this very Internet that is an alleged threat to the PTB that they have forgotten that necessity is the mother of invention.

Personally, I think the PTB might be thinking they are better served by a free Internet than without it. Some corporations may be pushing to change things, but behind those there are powers that pretty much think beyond just money. Plus the powers behind the powers seem to be obsessed mainly with control, and to find new ways to control. Maybe the free Internet is a kind of testing ground for them. Where else can one find so many people communicating at once?

In any case, what's the leeway here, two years or more? In just six months this forum made leaps and bounds. Reality is non-linear, so who knows where the next few years will take us? Whatever happens (although an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure), people are in such a state that they may need a few shocks to get the blood flowing in their brains again. And those shocks need not be TOO hard. I think the Internet issue might be a constructive shock when it eventually hits the fan.

My brother has set-up a server. He does not knows the technicalities of servers (neither do I but I think thisn will change): He hired a guy and the guy said my brother's server is virtually autonomous, that he could "set-up a whole new internet" with it. My brother do not have many resources, so I will document my self on how to set-up an pathocracy-proof server, if such a thing is possible. If i succed, I will offer it to SOTT to... I dont know what for but I will offer it.

Now if people started having their Internet plugs pulled, solutions like this would not only start pouring in, but networks (like the dark internet- better a less criminal sounding name be chosen, IMO), will start forming. It doesn't matter how small they are.

Eventually, they will grow. What the PTB doesn't understand is that once people taste and get used to free Internet, having it suddenly yanked away may just throw them into a different kind of dissonance. One where they will decide to do something about it. It's the kind of dissonance they should start getting used to, IMO.

 

[Ubermensch]

Eventually, they will grow. What the PTB doesn't understand is that once people taste and get used to free Internet, having it suddenly yanked away may just throw them into a different kind of dissonance. One where they will decide to do something about it.

I hope your're right. The sheep seem to be blindly accepting what has gone on in the past five years of Bush though.
And those who have tried, for instance, the 500,000 people who marched NYC on 8/31/2004 were ignored and shut down by 40,000 NYPD.

 

[Guest]

Yes, but the value of computers is that when you know what you're doing (and there are a lot of good hackers out there with ideals), it is unlikely you will be caught. It's a problem that still requires a lot of thought, but I've heard it mentioned on forums here and there, and everytime it was there was always a hacker posting who sounded like he/she and their hacker friends were already adamant about getting around the problem.

Word gets around. And until it does, even if the worst happens this site can survive on e-mail correspondence, as was mentioned.

People will realize, if they haven't already that marching ain't gonna cut it unless an outraged population majority comes out it force. And THAT aint gonna happen until people start learning to use that human ingenuity in more specific ways instead of expecting a big return from useless actions.

You want to deal with the establishment, you have to network with others to find ways to become independent of the establishment, those who communicate can do so under the radar, those who are technologically inclined can also find ways to live in society but not of it, and help the communicators.

Those who are inclined toward engineering and applied science can help find ways to slowly get people off the PTB energy grid, at least in part, and so on and so forth. Laws are still clearly defined, and if enough people get active doing what needs to be done they will be safe. The controllers must make people afraid, and get them to act rashly or be perpetually paralyzed. That shows people thinking for themselves are not what they want.

If they REALLY were so all-powerful, they would not give a hoot who thinks what, but A LOT of resources are spent on psychological control. To me that means there MUST be something about psychological independence that frightens them. And I don't think it's the possibility of violent revolution. That would be doing them a favour.

What they are afraid of is not only an underground internet, but a whole underground society forming. And I think they know such a society could be like Poe's "Purloin Letter": completely hidden in plain view. A LOT of smart people putting their heads together can come up with solutions one or two would never dream of on their own.

Just something to consider.

 

[Ubermensch]

Is there a list of "allies" of SotT? Or a list of who is CoIntelPro and who is not? It would help users to avoid wasting their time on websites that are against the truth.

 

[ark]

Is there a list of "allies" of SotT? Or a list of who is CoIntelPro and who is not? It would help users to avoid wasting their time on websites that are against the truth.

You see, there is no point of making such a list. Those who today may seem to be allies, tomorrow may happen to be COINTELPRO. Those that today seem to be COINTELPRO, tomorrow may prove to be just ignorant or mislead. The data are dynamic, not static. We collect the data, analyze the data, update the data, analyze the data again. Then all is based on probabilities. What we gather - we publish. If we come to a different conclusion - we correct our previous analysis. Till now, as far as we are aware of it, we did not make many errors . And if we make an error, we write about it, so that everybody can learn from our errors.
Right now the list of suspects is growing. And, as you can see, we do not have many allies. This is because of our rather specific and unique mixture of science, mysterious and the real. So, the list of our enemies will certainly grow. But the point is not to have allies for SOTT. The point is to find the truth and to find allies for the truth.

But, if you are interested in a larger picture, and some kind of a "list", that, perhaps, will be updated, you may like to read our series Cosmic Cointelpro Timeline

 

[vinny]

Is there a list of "allies" of SotT? Or a list of who is CoIntelPro and who is not? It would help users to avoid wasting their time on websites that are against the truth.

not only is there no point making such a list of 'allies'. It would be dangerous to do so:
What, produce a nice pre-compiled priority-hit-list for the cointelpro agents? I don't think so!

Plus, it is necessary to sift through a certain amount of 'rubbish', in order to exercise and develop discernment. It is always possible to get diverted by such disinformation, but at the same time It is part of the 'learning curve' which develops skills that are necessary for survival in the quest for truth, IMHO. If everything is handed on a plate, then how is a person to cope when the going gets tough?

There are plenty of illustrations within this 'knowledge-sharing' network, of cointelpro at work, which should help those who want to learn, to be able to start to discern these things for themselves. But the situations where it happens will always be new and different.

What did the C's say? something like:
always expect attack.
know modes of same.
know how to counter same.

What better way to learn about these 'modes', than to encounter them in action on the sott forum (where they will be countered, and their tactics explained for observers) and also elsewhere.